Kailash Thapliyal vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax Officer

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, disposing of the reliefs sought by the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Officer, Goods and Service, Rudraprayag, Sector – 1. The petitioner was also instructed to submit the six defaulted returns, returns from the date of cancellation until the present date, and any outstanding dues. The Court further directed that if the petitioner pays all pending dues under the GST Act, their application for the restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally. The Court did not explicitly address the quashing of the cancellation order but focused on the process for restoration. The issue of whether the Commissioner is an adjudicating authority was noted as a basis for the petitioner's approach, but the operative directions focused on the application for revocation and payment of dues.

Facts

The petitioner, seeking to quash the cancellation of their GST registration order dated 08.09.2021, approached the High Court. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. They also sought a direction to permit them to file an application for revocation of the cancellation under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and for the respondent to consider it. The petitioner's counsel relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which held that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, and thus, an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, would not lie to the Commissioner. The respondent was represented by the learned Brief Holder for the State.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration order dated 08.09.2021 is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's willingness to clear all dues and the applicability of the Division Bench judgment regarding the Commissioner not being an adjudicating authority? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an application for revocation of the cancelled GST registration under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the respondent should be directed to consider such an application liberally? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in SPA No. 123 of 2022, which established that the Commissioner is not an adjudicating authority, implying that appeals under Section 107 of the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, are not maintainable before the Commissioner. They also expressed their intent to pay all outstanding tax, interest, and late fees. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side.